FullMetalPanda:I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat. You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny. The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...

FarkedOver:JustGetItRight: FarkedOver: thought he was elected.... hmmmm I must have just imagined all those elections that he won.

You know, there's at least one other guy who was elected, but also used violence to gain and increase power, used a particular race/religion as a scapegoat for all his country's problems, hypocritically interfered with other countries, had bunch of corruption in his administration, rewrote his country's laws and still didn't follow them, shut down media outlets or simply killed those that were critical of him.

Being elected doesn't prevent one from becoming a tyrant

Too compare Chavez to "one other guy" is a littler absurd, no?

My point is that to say he was elected neither proves nor disproves the assertion that he was a tyrant. In that discussion, it is most certainly a fair comparison.

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization. Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html

The deal with Arafart is that while he was an evil capitalist pig, he was a moslem terrorist and therefore hated Jews. So it was ok for him to be an evil capitalist pig.

Now I can't wait until I see the excuses the occutards will use for why it's ok for Chavez to have all that money.

liam76:I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.

Do i begrudge the small mom and pop store no. They are just as much a part of the proletariat as any factory worker. Do I loathe the CEO and the owners of major companies? Yes, they have made a living exploiting labor.

Phinn It doesn't count as "exploitation" when both parties in a voluntary transaction realize a benefit.

Nothing in capitalism is "voluntary". Most people have to do wage-labor in order to pay rent/mortgage and buy food. We merely get the choice of masters (if we're lucky; most people take whatever work they can get).

"Exploitation" is one of those scary-sounding words that means whatever you want it to mean, as long as it's something along the lines of "bad."

If someone takes advantage of another's misfortune in order to profit, that's exploitation.

Neither you nor any other commie I've ever encountered has been able to identify exactly how, in a free market, what "situation" is being "manufactured," and show how that is wrong, unjust, inequitable, etc. But I'm always willing to hear a new attempt. Don't just say "capitalism." Be specific.

See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.

RanDomino:See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.

FarkedOver:liam76: I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.

Do i begrudge the small mom and pop store no. They are just as much a part of the proletariat as any factory worker. Do I loathe the CEO and the owners of major companies? Yes, they have made a living exploiting labor.

The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop. Luckily that will never happen.

FarkedOver:Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it

Yeah that's not how socialism works. Socialist want to seize only that which was once used to oppress the working class. I own no capital and have no means of oppressing a worker. Thanks for playing though.

That implies that socialism works. First you have to define what "works" means.

liam76:The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop. Luckily that will never happen.

I don't think that is necessarily true. There may be some hard liners that may say that I wouldn't be one of them. BUT to compare kulaks to mom and pop stores is not a good comparison at all. There was very little of a capitalist economy built up in Russia at the time, there was the ending of WWI and an on-going civil war. They needed to ramp up production and kick start an economy that didn't exist in the first place. They had to collectivize farms for this purpose. In the US it is a completely different scenario and the comparison is just not valid.

PaLarkin:Now I can't wait until I see the excuses the occutards will use for why it's ok for Chavez to have all that money.

You know what? It won't make any difference. There will always be people to drink the kool-aide -- true believers. Like I mentioned yesterday: it's amazing the reach of Chavez, all the way to American suburban teenagers. But, there is hope, most grow out of it.

onyxruby:Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

Mija:onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

Joe Blowme:Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

FarkedOver:Joe Blowme: Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

RanDomino:If someone takes advantage of another's misfortune in order to profit, that's exploitation.

That sounds like awfully bad stuff, but unfortunately it has no concrete meaning.

What exactly is "taking advantage"? All parties in all voluntary transactions seek an advantage, compared to what situation they will be in without the transaction. That's just another word for profit or benefit. I expect that you (and everyone I meet) are constantly seeking to benefit from decisions you make about what to do, at any given moment. I want you to succeed, actually -- to get whatever benefit that you want, as you define it -- as long as you don't attack (or threaten) or defraud me or anyone else.

What exactly is "misfortune"? A disparity of wealth? That's a constant feature of all life. Not only does it constantly change, but wealth is largely subjective. You might find sitting in a small college-town apartment with some buddies, strumming a guitar and eating pork rinds, to be the pinnacle of human bliss and happiness. Others might liken that situation to being in prison. If you enjoy what you have, then you are a wealthy man.

If one person offers another person a trade, to which either party can respond by agreeing or declining, without fear of being attacked by that other party for declining, then the trade is voluntary. When that trade occurs, it's BECAUSE both parties expect to profit by the trade.

What exactly is wrong with profit? As I said, in any voluntary transaction, by definition, both parties are profiting. You seem to have an emotional attachment to one type of party (employees), and hate the other (employers), and so you reflexively conclude that one person's profit is good and just, while the other person's is wrong. But you have completely failed to articulate a principle that show exactly why it is wrong, or to distinguish between good profits and bad profits.

I submit that acting for profit is never wrong. It's aggressive violence that's wrong. Of course, as Chavez shows, aggressive violence can also be extremely profitable. But it's the aggression that's the wrongful part.

RanDomino:See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.

The act of "driving people off their land" is a problem flowing from a LACK of property rights, not from the presence of property rights. And, yes, I would certainly agree with you that the feudal system of property that preceded an emerging free market in land was, comparably, worse. The poor (and unfree) definition of feudal property, derived as it was by more or less constant war (i.e., theft) and de facto slavery, was economically inferior, precisely because it was unfree.

Banks today are agents of a state-sponsored cartel. What they peddle nowadays (paper and electronic state-sponsored "money") is the diametric opposite of a free market for currency.

I'm all in favor of prohibiting deceptive trade practices, as a subset of fraud. That has nothing to do with communism and the economic and ethical benefits of clearly-defined property rights.

Joe Blowme:FarkedOver: Joe Blowme: Mija: onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

Here is how Chavez won his elections, as anyone who has lived in Latin America can attest.

Election time is rolling around so pick up trucks filled with toys for the kiddies and chicken dinners are passed around with some money taped to the inside. Then the day of the election the buses come and bring the people to the voting boths.

You grease the poor only slightly to buy their loyalty when it is time to vote.

Unfortunately the majority of latin americans vote not with their heads but with their nationalistic pride. Which is the way it happens in most countries, but it is worse south of ye old border.

Ask the Farker Magorn who was shot with rubber bullets for walking past a protest.

theflatline:Here is how Chavez won his elections, as anyone who has lived in Latin America can attest.

Election time is rolling around so pick up trucks filled with toys for the kiddies and chicken dinners are passed around with some money taped to the inside. Then the day of the election the buses come and bring the people to the voting boths.

You grease the poor only slightly to buy their loyalty when it is time to vote.

Unfortunately the majority of latin americans vote not with their heads but with their nationalistic pride. Which is the way it happens in most countries, but it is worse south of ye old border.

Ask the Farker Magorn who was shot with rubber bullets for walking past a protest.

There is no "ye". We've been through this.Also, what kind of voting population would be stupid enough to keep voting for someone who steals from the rich, keeps the money himself and always promises a better tomorrow? Never happened. He was a wise a benevolent leader that outwitted his oppressors at every turn. I have been to college. This is what I learned.

Chavez wanted to alleviate poverty and so he created a bunch of social programs to help the poor. He was just bad at it and a lot of his work ended up being "big idea, shoddy execution" that hasn't benefited anyone but him in the long run.

How the hell does that jib with your statement? Also: Godwinning, really?

Oh, I dunno, suppression of civil liberties, with force on occasion, among other things. He wasn't "bad at it", he was a bad person.

Chavez wanted to alleviate poverty and so he created a bunch of social programs to help the poor. He was just bad at it and a lot of his work ended up being "big idea, shoddy execution" that hasn't benefited anyone but him in the long run.

How the hell does that jib with your statement? Also: Godwinning, really?

Oh, I dunno, suppression of civil liberties, with force on occasion, among other things. He wasn't "bad at it", he was a bad person.

Anytime someone says they are doing something "for" someone else "I do it for the people", "I do it for the children", "I do it for country" they really mean I do it for my damn self and I'm probably breaking the law in doing so.

give me doughnuts:FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.

give me doughnuts:FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.

internut scholar:give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.

But not by him and his crew. THIS time they will get it to work.

Capitalism works great if you're in a powerful country. Ask the people of any country rich in natural resources but lacking any semblance of a life for the people are doing. They are exploited day in and day out so that you can rest comfortably every day and not have to think about what a shiatty place the world really is. When people in these countries become class aware you should be scared.

internut scholar:give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.

You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.

Mija:onyxruby: Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.

Chavez was elected. He was not a dictator. You either don't know what dictator means or you are repeating right wing ignorance. Either way you are pathetic.

Man what an abrasive cawk.

I hope the anonymous tongue lashings you give on Fark make you feel better about your pathetic life.